Interim relief in election process justified where sole valid nomination survived and denial would have rendered final relief futile.

Where only one valid nomination had been filed and no withdrawal occurred, the election process left no real contest and the meeting was needed only to declare the result. In that situation, the quorum requirement lost practical significance. The Court treated the case as a rare instance where a strong prima facie right and the risk of the writ petition becoming infructuous justified interim relief, because refusal would have allowed the office term to expire before final hearing. Interim relief was therefore warranted, and the result was to be declared under the notified election programme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interim relief directing declaration of the election result where only one valid nomination had been filed, no withdrawal had taken place, and the refusal of interim relief would effectively deny the final relief.

Analysis: The election programme contemplated voting and counting only if necessary. Once the sole nomination was found valid and remained unwithdrawn after the prescribed stages were over, no contest survived and the meeting was required only for declaring the result. In such circumstances, the quorum requirement lost practical significance. The case disclosed a strong prima facie right, and withholding interim relief would have allowed the term of office to expire before final hearing, thereby rendering the writ petition futile. This was one of those rare cases where interim relief was necessary to prevent injustice.

Conclusion: Interim relief was warranted and the refusal to grant it was unsustainable; the result was to be declared in accordance with the notified election programme.

---